Free Newsletter
SUBPOENAS Denial of Motions
cassiejohnson//December 14, 2015//
Listen to this article
Where a defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for a subpoena ad testificandum and a subpoena duces tecum, the judgment is affirmed because the defendant failed to establish for the subpoena ad testificandum that his father’s presence was needed at sentencing, and the defendant failed to identify the documents needed with adequate specificity and also failed to show that they were relevant and admissible for the subpoena duces tecum.
Judgment is affirmed.
14-3866 U.S. v. Bradford, appealed from the Western District of Missouri, Wollman, J.
Top News
- Courtroom outbursts justified exclusion of mother from parental rights trial
- LGBTQ+ group sues over Iowa book, discussion bans
- Justices uphold business tax bill
- Court to weigh social media and First Amendment
- Federal court rules brokerage firm breached 1994 contract
- Court denies revocation of adoption
- UnitedHealth suit alleges faulty AI led to denied claims
- Judge asked to block part of a North Dakota abortion law
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Asylum appeals yield 3 denials for immigrants
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Risky business and tips for managing the risk
- Perspectives: JFK assassination: 60 years of litigation here
- Perspectives: Lincoln’s memorable address recalls impact here
